↓ Skip to main content

Primary Care Physicians’ Perspectives of Their Role in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Primary Care Physicians’ Perspectives of Their Role in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3746-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renae A. Lawrence, Jordana K. McLoone, Claire E. Wakefield, Richard J. Cohn

Abstract

As survival rates improve, cancer is increasingly considered a chronic illness associated with significant long-term burden and sequelae, both physical and psychological. Various models of cancer care, including primary care physician (PCP)-led and shared-care, have been proposed, though a systematic review of PCPs' perspectives of their role and challenges in providing cancer care remains lacking. This systematic review summarises available literature on PCPs' perspectives of their role in cancer care. Five databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were systematically searched using keywords and MeSH headings for articles from 1993-2015 exploring PCPs' views of their role in the care of patients/survivors of both child and adult cancers. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for full-text review, abstracted data and performed a quality assessment. Thirty-five articles representing the perspectives of 10,941 PCPs were captured. PCPs' confidence to provide care varied according to cancer phase (e.g. treatment versus survivorship), care domain (e.g. acute medical care versus psychological late effects), and disease prevalence (e.g. breast malignancies versus childhood cancers), with preferences for shared- versus independent-care models varying accordingly. Barriers included a lack of timely and specific information/communication from oncologists and limited knowledge/lack of guidelines, as well as lack of time, remuneration and patient trust. The data was limited by a lack of consideration of the preferences of patients and oncologists, leading to uncertainty about the acceptability and feasibility of suggested changes to cancer care. PCPs appear willing to provide cancer care for patients/survivors; however, they report barriers and unmet needs related to providing such care. Future research/interventions should take into account the preferences and needs of PCPs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 188 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 15%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Other 13 7%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 51 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 15%
Psychology 11 6%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Unspecified 6 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 63 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,758,008
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,343
of 8,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,462
of 351,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#18
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.